Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
 
  • Locked thread
DrVenkman
Dec 28, 2005

I think he can hear you, Ray.
Why is Eloise Hawking a timelord?

I know the official explanation for Aaron/The Psychic was that he was a fraud. But it doesn't explain why he pays for her Plane ticket because the baby was in danger. They clearly threw in "He's crazy!" well after the fact because it almost works.

Honestly there are some things I couldn't give a poo poo about (The skeletons - why did so many people get hung up on that) and there are some things that point to bigger problems with the writing of the show (The outrigger - They can spin it however they want but that was just loving lazy on their part).

Most frustrating of all is the Dharma initiative. They got to be such a big part of the show that it's going to hurt future viewings knowing it'll go loving nowhere. The bigger problem? Half the cast spend 3 YEARS with them and we don't learn a loving thing.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

DrVenkman
Dec 28, 2005

I think he can hear you, Ray.
Again, the Eloise Hawking thing *Almost* works except that in 'Flashes Before Your Eyes' she has real time knowledge of things that are happening or that are *about* to happen. The explanation of Daniel's notebook fails in that regard. Watch the episode again and try and explain how Daniel's notebook could give her the information she has.

The thing with Dharma is that again, they were such a big part of the show but are casually tossed aside when the end game comes into play. And again, don't have your characters live with them if you're not going to attempt to explain a bit more about them.

I actually think the show has answered more than people gave it credit for and I honestly don't expect the show to answer much. But some things are a result of sloppy writing.

Don't even get me started on the temple arc.

DrVenkman
Dec 28, 2005

I think he can hear you, Ray.

Mr. Clark2 posted:

What the hell is this "outrigger" thing that I keep hearing angry references to? I mean, I know that an outrigger is a kind of canoe but they were used so many times in the show.

During one of the time jumps Sawyer and a few of the others are shot at by unseen assailants while they're escaping in one of the outriggers, in a moment that was clearly going to be brought back again later. Mainly "Who the gently caress is shooting at them?" but it never got resolved. It's often used as a example of sloppy writing, giving that it was brought up so late into the show. It was also a source of torment for Alan Sepinwall.

As for Eloise Hawking, to get more specific about it. In 'Flashes before your eyes' she goes outside with Desmond and draws his attention to a man in Red shoes, then moments later the man is killed in the street. It's a demonstration of her knowing things that she shouldn't. There's no possible way that Faraday's notebook could ever include that information! That's the problem. She's clearly set up as something bigger than what she ends up being.

Is this a good time to ask about the Cabin and the Smoke ring?

DrVenkman
Dec 28, 2005

I think he can hear you, Ray.
A good example of Teek's thinking is the spin it puts on the episode 'Dave'. The MiB can't kill Hurley as he's a candidate, but he can appear as an apparition and talk Hurley into jumping off a cliff.

DrVenkman
Dec 28, 2005

I think he can hear you, Ray.
Oh gently caress, I was listening to the Firewall and Iceberg podcast and they mentioned the Hurleybird. It was also one of the things that Cuse and Lindelof promised to answer.

We do have to accept one thing though. There are occasions where the writers just straight up don't have answers for things. That's either down to time or down to slopiness. It's cool to see some explanations that are worth mulling over, but lets not start bending backwards to make things fit either.

DrVenkman
Dec 28, 2005

I think he can hear you, Ray.

Robotnik DDS posted:

As far as I know the Hurleybird was never promised to be answered. It was a coincidence in the first place and something from the fans as opposed to the show.

The DVD Commentary did say Annie was going to be a big deal though :(

That bird was pretty weird though.

And why can I not remember Annie?

DrVenkman
Dec 28, 2005

I think he can hear you, Ray.
My issue with the finale, actually with the final season, isn't how it ends. I think, with a few caveats, that it's a wonderful send off for those characters. My issues are more based around the plain bad writing the show has exhibited.

The final season is mostly filler. The only aspects of real importance are the sideways flashes, the rest is almost meaningless. The temple, the terrible MiB flashback episode (Though I love Pelligrino and Welliver), it's of no worth.

The final season basically comes down to theme vs plot, and Lindelof and Cuse decided to serve one at the expense of another. That's fine, but people didn't watch for themes, they watched because mysteries hooked them in. Everything else is what gave the show substance, but you can't just ditch one aspect and expect people to be ok with it.

People made a huge investment with Lost. They wanted to know about the Polar Bear, about the Outrigger, about the Dharma initiative; and while Cuse and Lindelof said for years that people will be never satisfied with the answers, that's no reason not to give answers. I think that's what hampers a re-watch of the show, it's difficult knowing that so much of it doesn't pay off. In fact, aside from some moments, the first 3 seasons feel like they belong to a different show. It's as if a new writing staff came in and thought "No we'll put our own spin on this".

The worst thing to tint that loving finale is in the church. Sayid and Shannon. Sayid's whole character, his drive and motivation, was his wife. But instead Lindelof and Cuse decided for some vague reason that when he makes his move to the afterlife it's with Shannon, someone he undoubtedly liked but barely mentioned after she died. Offering some idea about "Oh well it's all about the Island and because they made their connection on the Island that's what's important" is loving bullshit, which is just was Cuse and Lindelof had to offer as an explanation.

I look back on a lot of the show with fondness, and I like the actors a lot (I think Matthew Fox gets almost no credit for the work he did. He's brilliant in the finale). But for every great thing I think the show did there's a handful of things that just piss me off. I don't regret watching the show though, and as they say it's the journey not the destination that counts, I just wish we ended up somewhere nicer.

DrVenkman
Dec 28, 2005

I think he can hear you, Ray.

HanabaL03 posted:

Haven't checked this thread in a while, but I wanted to chime in on this. I've found that most people who didn't watch the show live, tend to not enjoy it as much as the people who spent countless hours thinking about the show in between episodes and seasons. Lost was so much better because of the interaction that I had in the threads, talking with my friends, reading crazy theories etc. There hasn't been a single show since that has invoked that much thoughtful (and a lot of crazy rear end) discussion about theories based on religion, novels, scientific articles etc. I stand by this; Lost is one of the few shows that will always be more enjoyable when you take more time to watch it, especially if you have someone else to discuss it with.

That's probably why I have yet to do a re watch of the series. It's not that I don't love the show, it's that I probably won't enjoy it as much without having all those discussions that took place from week to week. The discussions are what I miss most about the show.

While I kind of agree with this (Those in-between season waits and speculation), it can also help when it comes to the slower parts of the show. Season 3 in particular benefits from being able to watch it quickly (Well the first half does anyway, the second half kicks into high gear and is pretty great).

There's a writer on Chud.com who did a rewatch of the whole show and who discussed the meanings in each episode, explained the references and how sub-textually Lindelof and Cuse were clearly thinking of these things - and in that regard it's made me appreciate the show a whole lot more. Those things can be dismissed if you want to, but it's worth thinking about since it's there and clearly intentional.

If anyone was interested in reading it then they should. The link below starts with episode 1, but Season 1 isn't all that deep on anything except character. It doesn't really pick up until the end.

http://losttherewatch.blogspot.com/2009/08/season-one-episodes-1-4.html

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

DrVenkman
Dec 28, 2005

I think he can hear you, Ray.
I was reading through that Back To the Island blog for season 1, and there were some things I totally forgot. Including that after Claire goes missing people just don't seem to give a poo poo about finding her. Charlie sort of stews over it but that's it. It's nice to see they continued that tradition later on in the show and didn't give a poo poo when she went missing for the second time.

Second is after I watched the pilot again, our introduction to Michael is him screaming 'Waaaaaaaalt', which is sadly how we end up defining his character. Speaking of, his ex-wife is the cuntiest oval office who ever lived. The only way her behaviour makes any sense is if Michael had been an abusive husband and she's getting some payback. It's odd that though chose to write such an gross caricature of a woman.

  • Locked thread